|
Codependent Poster posted:Except response to the trailer has been super positive even outside of people who know him. Based on what? Genuinely curious
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Senor Candle posted:The Fantastic Four haven't had a good movie. That's the only difference. Movies deviate from what made them popular, are less popular as a result. Hmmm... I think there's a correlation here. Perhaps, if the movies understood the source material and what makes it popular, and then emulated that instead of trying to fix what isn't broken, they could possibly make a movie that people enjoy. ....Naaah that's crazy talk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Hakkesshu posted:Based on what? Genuinely curious People on the Internet have pressed the Like button, pay attention.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
Deadpool looks fun and enjoyable, that's the big difference between it and any of the other non Marvel movies, and I expect will make a difference for the average viewer
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
Deadpool is more of a passion project than anything. And it does have appeal to the action movie crowd outside of the comic book crowd. Which is one of the things I always think that made Guardians so popular, it was not just a comic book movie, but it was also space adventure, which is something we've not had in a long time. Most sci-fi movies have been dystopian earth futures, not fun space adventures with aliens and wisecracking heroes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Fantastic Four as originally written in the comics are popular for decades. Wait. So any time a movie deviates from the source material and is more popular, that means the source material is the thing that was broken? Is that the argument you're making here?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
And it also has the R rating which will cut its audience potential quite a bit. A big portion of money for a lot of superhero movies is through appealing to kids. And that's not an option with Deadpool. The good thing is that if it cracks $100 million for its domestic total by the end it'll be seen as a success. And that's not totally out of the question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
The popularity of the comics dont matter at all. Guardians of the Galaxy was a huge success because it was a fun movie not because there was some huge fanbase powering it. The fantastic four movies failed because they were real bad movies and a fantastic four movie COULD still be a lot of fun with some competence and creativity behind it
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Yeah Guardians was a success because of good press and being something different at a time when it needed to be. I mean the comic it was based on wasn't even successful for a comic. I mean it was critically, but it was not a big seller at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Deadpool is more of a passion project than anything. And it does have appeal to the action movie crowd outside of the comic book crowd. Which is one of the things I always think that made Guardians so popular, it was not just a comic book movie, but it was also space adventure, which is something we've not had in a long time. Most sci-fi movies have been dystopian earth futures, not fun space adventures with aliens and wisecracking heroes. I loved Guardians of the Galaxy because I was instantly reminded of the Fifth Element, which no matter what was a fun thing to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
I thought the days of superhero movies deviating from the source material were long gone. I stand corrected. No wonder these kind of films fail.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Myrddin_Emrys posted:I thought the days of superhero movies deviating from the source material were long gone. I stand corrected. When was the last time we had a really comics accurate movie? GoTG was changed heavily, Ant Man was pretty different, Age of Ultron took a lot of liberties. It's not a fault to deviate from the source material, it's a fault to do it and make something bad and stupid like they keep doing to Doom
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Superhero movies tend to actually deviate massively from their source material. In fact, most of them aren't even based directly on comic book stories. e: Observe Dark Knight, which is a grab-bag of elements from the Batman mythos, modernised.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I'd say the Spider-Man movies (both Raimi and AMS, funnily enough) are probably the most comics-accurate superhero films out there, and even they take a lot of liberties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
I think the Marvel movies manage to strike a good balance between being accurate and adapting/modernizing things for the purposes of a modern cinematic universe. No one is upset that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts have a romance in Iron Man, and few people mind that Jarvis is an AI now. But people are upset if Dr. Doom is some loving businessman played by a lovely actor, or Galactus is a cloud.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
The first 2 Fantastic Four movies were pretty faithful, Doom being an exception.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:No one is upset that Tony Stark and Pepper Potts have a romance in Iron Man The early issues contained a love triage between her, Tony, and Happy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:17
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:The early issues contained a love triage between her, Tony, and Happy. Wasn't it unrequited in the Pepper to Tony direction? I forget.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Scott Pilgrim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Lurdiak posted:Wasn't it unrequited in the Pepper to Tony direction? I forget. No, Tony was all in to Pepper but thinks about how he can't be with her because of his robo-vest. Basically everybody was into everybody but couldn't for reasons. muscles like this! fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
That was extremely different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
It takes a pretty spectacular failure to make people, myself included, look back fondly on the Tim Story FF films.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
 It got sodomized internationally. Apparently in 43 markets it's only made 34 million. http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/JoshWildingNewsAndReviews/news/?a=123784 Welp it's dead at home and abroad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:29
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Wait. So any time a movie deviates from the source material and is more popular, that means the source material is the thing that was broken? Is that the argument you're making here? But when the source material *works*, and the filmmakers deviate from it for no comprehensible reason, that's when things go wrong. Examples include the latest FF movie, Galactus and Doom in the prior FF movies, Deadpool in the Wolverine origins movie, etc. Comic book movies don't need to be slavishly beholden to the source material, but they do need to recognize what made the source material good and popular, and not just change poo poo willy nilly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:No, Tony was all in to Pepper but thinks about how he can't be with her because of his robo-vest. I bet most people are surprised that Tony ever had a secret identity. Iron Man was "Stark's bodyguard" that was never with Tony unless someone started asking questions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
I will always maintain that sewing Deadpool's mouth shut was one of the few logical things in that movie, 'cause really why would Striker want to listen to his bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:I bet most people are surprised that Tony ever had a secret identity. Iron Man was "Stark's bodyguard" that was never with Tony unless someone started asking questions. Well, it wasn't so much the secret identity thing as early Tony had to wear this full on metal chestplate that he had to plug in every day or else he would die. Which is kind of a mood killer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Sure, why not? If the source material has issues and the filmmakers recognize that and change it for the better, then thumbs up. As others have mentioned, comic movies deviate from the source material all the time, and for good reason. But... what if both the original source material and the new material are good? Perhaps for different reasons?! Drax in GotG is an alien from a race who doesn't understand metaphor. Drax in the original comics is a human from Earth mutated in a super-being specifically to kill Thanos. Which one is bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Deadpool posted:And it also has the R rating which will cut its audience potential quite a bit. A big portion of money for a lot of superhero movies is through appealing to kids. And that's not an option with Deadpool. The good thing is that if it cracks $100 million for its domestic total by the end it'll be seen as a success. And that's not totally out of the question. Kingsman has shown that they audience is there for R-Rated, stylised-comic-book-y action (not that a lot of people know it was based on a comic book, but still). Also more people are aware of Deadpool than we think. He has a shitload of merch going around, for a character who has barely been in a movie or a bigger cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
SpaceWolfPurrp posted:I will always maintain that sewing Deadpool's mouth shut was one of the few logical things in that movie, 'cause really why would Striker want to listen to his bullshit. Deadpool at the end of the movie was a zombie remote-controlled by Stryker like he's Guybrush Threepwood. Why would you have to sow his mouth shut?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Its probably going to be less people not caring about Deadpool the character and more the fact that Ryan Reynolds is box office poison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I don't think you can really predict Deadpool. It's going to depend a lot on luck more than anything. It could be a good film and get completely overlooked or it could get great word of mouth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Its probably going to be less people not caring about Deadpool the character and more the fact that Ryan Reynolds is box office poison.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Its probably going to be less people not caring about Deadpool the character and more the fact that Ryan Reynolds is box office poison. its like hollywood just loves to poo poo on the poor guy or something  The Voices proves the dude has acting chops
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Is he though? I've liked plenty of his more recent movies. Safe House, Buried, Smoking Aces. Those aren't exactly "recent" considering Smoking Aces is from 2006. His last major starring role was RIPD which only made $33 million. Just this year he was in that Self/Less and that made only $12 million. The last thing he was in that actually made money was The Croods and he was only supporting, which is a similar thing with Safe House where the real draw was Denzel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Grendels Dad posted:Deadpool at the end of the movie was a zombie remote-controlled by Stryker like he's Guybrush Threepwood. Why would you have to sow his mouth shut? please don't ruin my shining light of Wolverine Origins
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Those aren't exactly "recent" considering Smoking Aces is from 2006. His last major starring role was RIPD which only made $33 million. Just this year he was in that Self/Less and that made only $12 million. The last thing he was in that actually made money was The Croods and he was only supporting, which is a similar thing with Safe House where the real draw was Denzel. Holy poo poo Self/Less came out already? drat that movie came and flopped so quietly I forgot the previews interested me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Xenomrph posted:Sure, why not? If the source material has issues and the filmmakers recognize that and change it for the better, then thumbs up. As others have mentioned, comic movies deviate from the source material all the time, and for good reason. But my copy of scriptwriting for dummies and how to write a blockbuster script says what works for the FF doesn't work so just sit back and let me fix it for you. -apparently everybody
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
SpaceWolfPurrp posted:please don't ruin my shining light of Wolverine Origins I can't help it, I just hate that ending so so much. I rewatched it fairly recently to find out if it's as bad as I remembered, and noticed that the scene where Deadpool is properly introduced is clearly evocative of the scene towards the end of The Phantom Menace when Darth Maul confronts the two Jedi. Wolverine leads a group of kids towards some hangar doors and they part dramatically and there's a silhouette, and instead of Darth Maul we get a guy that looks like he got lost on his way to a rave party.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
ImpAtom posted:But... what if both the original source material and the new material are good? Perhaps for different reasons?! Why does one of them have to be bad for the other to be good? This isn't a zero-sum game, and there's no hard and fast rule on what will or won't work. Alien Drax worked in the movie because he's an entertaining character that didn't require the sizeable backstory dump that mutated-earth-man Drax would have needed. Comic book Drax works because Abnett and Lanning turned him into Riddick. In both film and print, creators (are supposed to) use their best judgment to take what works and run with it, while glossing over or entirely removing the elements that hold back the character or story. If it's done well, how faithful the final product is to the source material won't matter so much. If it's done poorly, no amount of slavish devotion to the source will save it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2015 21:46
|
|
